Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hampden-White (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hampden-White

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unreferenced WP:PROMO article created by a WP:SPA used to promote only Colin Hampden-White ‎and Buck Brothers (a band photographed by Hampden-White). Additionally, this fails WP:ARTIST, including points 5b and 5c. (Exhibitions are minor gallery exhibitions and substantive press coverage is thin.) —Waldhorn (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the unsourced BLP rules Roberticus talk 15:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to User:Waldhorn and User:Roberticus. This article is unimpressive, yet your nomination and sole (so far) "!vote" are puzzling. "This is an unreferenced WP:PROMO article", according to Waldhorn (my emphasis). And indeed, when Waldhorn wrote this, the article sported a "BLP unsourced" template. Why so? Well, on 7 July Waldhorn had added the template -- to an article that had, or purported to have, well over a dozen sources. Here (reformatted but otherwise untouched) are those that at that time appeared under "Solo exhibitions": New York Show, New York Link from New York Times, London Solo Show Review 1, London Solo Show Review 2, Rebecca Hossack Gallery Show, New Orleans Show, Cork Street Award, Kings College Cambridge Show, Kings College Cambridge Review, Host Gallery London Show in The Times, Gwise Festival London & Interview, Mayfair Squatters Feature in The Sun, Rebecca Hossack Gallery, Foto & Summer Show, Review ARC Gallery, Gaywise Festival Now, the URLs of some of these putative sources look dodgy and a disappointing number of those I tried among the remainder are dead. But please explain what you mean here by "unreferenced"/"unsourced". -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dearth of reliable sources that meet the intent of WP:RS and the significant coverage aspect of WP:SIGCOV, many are dead links and/ or awfully bloggy. I admit I didn't try to put these dead links in the "wayback machine". Allow me to ask you, do you think multiple good sources can be cobbled together for this person? The article reads like a resume, and that supported my agreement with the nom's rationale... Roberticus talk 03:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to know whether the sources are adequate, or even near adequate. What I am certain of is that a claim that this article has no sources or no references either is false or extends the meaning of "no" far beyond anything to which I'm accustomed. But let's make a start by looking at the ostensible sources that I listed above. (I've lazily retained the titles provided in the Wikipedia article.)

New York Show -- here at Wayback
New York Link from New York Times -- or more simply, [nytimes.com/2012/02/01/dining/food-calendar.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/dining/food-calendar.html] A mere mention.
London Solo Show Review 1 -- here at Wayback
London Solo Show Review 2 -- Not at Wayback. Website is now rebeccahossack.com; this page doesn't appear to be there.
Rebecca Hossack Gallery Show -- Not at Wayback. Website is now rebeccahossack.com; this page doesn't appear to be there.
New Orleans Show -- a mere mention that CHW will be one of "thirteen exciting artists from the UK and USA and music" who will be exhibiting
Cork Street Award -- yes, evidence that he won this prize
Kings College Cambridge Show -- yes, a short article about CHW's photography
Kings College Cambridge Review -- not there, and not at Wayback
Host Gallery London Show in The Times -- Yes, the article's there. CHW isn't mentioned in its start, and to read more you have to pass over the Great Wall of Murdoch.
Gwise Festival London & Interview -- Yes, it's there. And a short Youtube video is embedded within it, too.
Mayfair Squatters Feature in The Sun -- Now here within thescottishsun.co.uk. CHW isn't mentioned in the titillating start of the article ("Two busty squatters bared all for arty photos before being cleared from a £22.5million London mansion"), other than in the caption to a "NSFW" pic of two squatters; and in order to read more you have to pass over the Great Wall of Murdoch.
Rebecca Hossack Gallery -- Now a page saying merely "Stay tuned. / We'll be back." (Which the same as what the top page says.)
Foto & Summer Show -- Shows one photo by each of many photographers; CHW is among these.
Review ARC Gallery -- Neither where it should be nor at Wayback.
Gaywise Festival -- At least currently, a pointless link: all it does is take you to the other gaywisefestival.wordpress.com link listed above.

The series "Mayfair squatters" shows young female squatters (we're told), dressed either attractively or not at all, lounging around what's said to be a monstrously expensive house. This will have some appeal to those who simply enjoy T&A, and plenty of appeal to the curtain-twitching readers of the Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and other tabloids. Not surprising that searching for our man's name together with "Mayfair squatters" brings quite a lot of hits. Sorry, I'm not motivated to investigate their quality, but I'd object to any claim that they don't exist. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at most of the still-live sites. I say "delete" because: 1) there are no sources for the biographical information, and I couldn't find any. Therefore, that information is unsourced (and possibly original research, e.g. was written by someone who knows him?). 2) I can find no sources that are about him in any detail, even though there is evidence that he is, or has been, a working photographer 3) the article is out of date, mentioning current shows that are no longer current. He fails notability, at least as evidenced in this article, and from what I can find with a quick search. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.